THE cruel Archbishop of St. Andrews, James Beaton, died and went to his account in 1539. He was succeeded by his nephew, the more infamous David Beaton, who had been made a cardinal by Pope Paul III in the previous year, and who had been not only one of the cruellest of men, but was notorious also for his immoralities. On the 28th of February 1546, Cardinal Beaton brought before him on trial a notable man of God, found him guilty of heresy, and condemned him to be burned to death next day. That man was George Wishart.
Let us look at this striking figure. It was he who had taught John Knox the way of life more perfectly. The description given of him by Emery Tylney, one of his devoted pupils at Cambridge, shows that he was a man greatly beloved.
“There was in the University of Cambridge,” says Tylney, “one Master George Wishart, of Benet’s College, who was a man of tall stature, polled head, and on the same a round French cap of the best, judged to be of melancholy complexion by his physiognomy, black haired, long bearded, comely of personage, well spoken after his country of Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learn, and well-travelled… He was a man modest, temperate, fearing God, hating covetousness, for his charity had never end, night, noon, nor day… Oh! that the Lord had left him to me, his poor boy, that he might have finished that he had begun.”
George Wishart, son of John Wishart, Laird of Pittarrow, was born about 1516. After he graduated as Master of Arts at King’s College, Aberdeen, he opened a school at Montrose about 1538, but had to flee to England because he was accused of heresy for teaching the Greek New Testament. Although he had discovered the errors of Popery his knowledge of the truth was yet immature, but he obtained a fuller knowledge of divine truth in Switzerland in 1540. When he returned to England he studied and taught at Cambridge. In 1543 he returned to Scotland and his career as a hunted preacher of the gospel began.
We take a glimpse at the work he did. He gave public lectures on the Epistle to the Romans at Dundee; then “begane to offerr Goddis Woord” in the southwest of Scotland. When he was preaching in Ayr with great freedom, the Bishop of Glasgow came to arrest him but, failing to do so, took possession of the church instead. Wishart proceeded to the Market Cross and preached there, for, said he, “Christ Jesus is as powerful in the fields as in the Kirk, and I find that He Himself oftener preached at the seaside and other such places than that He did in the temple of Jerusalem.” Then at Mauchline, with the people round im, he preached for three hours, and a widespread awakening ensued.
Hearing that the plague had broken out in Dundee, he went there. He chose ne East Port as his pulpit, and, with the healthy on the inside and the sick on the outside, preached good tidings. His first text there was, “He sent His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.” The people, much comforted by his discourse, pressed him to remain with them.
On one occasion while he was there, a priest named Sir John Wightman, having been bribed by Cardinal Beaton, waited at the foot of the stairs until the sermon was done, with a dagger drawn under his gown. Wishart detected him, and seizing his hand took the weapon from him. The people, enraged, called for vengeance on the would-be assassin, but Wishart protected and saved him.
Although the cardinal did not succeed on this occasion, Wishart believed that he would yet succeed. “I know that I shall end my life by the hands of that wicked man,” he predicted. One night, in the house of a friend, James Watson, he was observed after midnight to go out into the garden. He fell on his knees, sobbing and groaning, and prayed for nearly an hour. On being pressed afterwards to say what was the cause of his great sorrow he said eventually, “I will tell you: I know assuredly that my travail is near an end; therefore pray to God for me that I may not shrink when the battle waxeth most hot.”
His last sermon was preached at Haddington, and in it he solemnly warned the people of their sin and danger in despising and neglecting God’s Word. At midnight he was arrested by the Earl of Bothwell and carried off to Edinburgh. John Knox, who attended him in those days, wished to accompany him but Wishart said, “Nay, return to your bairns and God bless you. One is sufficient for
a sacrifice at this time.” And so the two great men parted on earth.
The cardinal called the bishops to St. Andrews, and Wishart was brought before them. His accuser, John Lauder, read a list of charges against him, and demanded, “What answerest thou to these sayings, thou runnagate! traitor!” Wishart was accused of denying the mass, purgatory, praying to the saints, and other Romish inventions, and was charged with asserting that Christ is the only Mediator, that priests might marry, and that without Scripture we should affirm nothing. His “godly answers and true reasons”, given from the Scriptures and “with great solidity of judgement”, were disregarded and scorned by his judges. They condemned him to be burned to death as a heretic.
Next morning, Wishart was led out to the stake in front of the Castle. Cushions were provided for the cardinal at the Castle window that he might comfortably view the awful spectacle. The martyr declared to the people that he felt much joy in offering up his life for the name of Christ, and entreated them to love the word of God and suffer patiently for it. He also told them, “Behold an consider my visage; ye shall not see me change my colour.” He prayed with loud voice, “O Saviour of the world, have mercy upon me. Father of Heaven, commend my spirit into thy holy hands!”. The Lord answered his prayer and gave him courage to suffer unto death in the fierce flames. And so, on that first day of March, 1546, he passed into glory to behold the King in His beauty.
The people now began to speak openly of the detestable cruelties done in the name of religion. Wishart’s fearless death, following his noble and godly life, did much to turn men’s thoughts to the truth of God, and bring about the happy deliverance of Scotland from the tyranny of an apostate Church.
Adapted from Martyrs of St. Andrews by G. Goodman
1996 Theological Conference Report
Rev D. J. MacDonald (Conference Chairman)
THE first paper given at the conference (in Inverness on 3rd and 4th December) was Alexander Henderson by Rev. K.D. Macleod. The more spiritual aspect of Henderson’s life and work was dealt with, an approach that was refreshing to those of us who had been accustomed to hearing of Henderson in political situations. Henderson was thrust into the political struggles of his time but he took part in them, first and foremost, as a man of God: a man of whom a contemporary spoke as “the fairest flower, after John Knox, of incomparable memory, that ever the Church of Scotland did enjoy”. We were led through Henderson’s life from his conversion, when already in the ministry, to the renewing of the National Covenant and the 1638 General Assembly. These are heart-stirring events in the history of our nation and its Church: events
of which to a large extent our generation is ignorant, and towards which the professing church in Scotland, to its shame, is apathetic.
Though Henderson was virtually the leader of the Scottish nation against the tyranny of Charles I, and was responsible for the drafting of the Solemn League and Covenant, his chief concerns were the cause of Christ and the care of souls. During the 1638 Assembly, “Henderson and other ministers spent many evenings with Argyll. The Earl afterwards traced his conversion, or at least his assurance of salvation to these evenings he spent in Henderson’s company in Glasgow”. We were left with the abiding impression that Henderson was, as a contemporary said, “A man in whom I see much of the image of Christ and who fears God”.
In his paper, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Rev. John MacLeod gave what he said “might loosely be called an extended review” of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William Webster. The Church of Rome was brought to the bar of history as to: 1, the status it gives to tradition; 2, the claims of the Papacy; 3, Mariolatry; 4, its doctrine of salvation; and 5, the Eucharist. On each of these important matters the Church of Rome not only cannot stand the test of Scripture, but even fails the test of history, because much of what Roman Catholicism claims as part of her changeless creed was both unknown to the Church Fathers and directly contrary to what they taught.
The Romish doctrine of placing tradition on a par with Scripture can be dated definitely to only the 16th century and was resorted to as a desperate attempt to stem the tide of the Reformation unleashed by Luther in his appeal to Scripture. That the central teachings of Rome are contrary to Scripture is not at issue but it was satisfactorily proved from her own writing that they have not always been held by her and have been added piecemeal over the centuries for reasons that have more to do with political power than with concern for the souls of men. The warnings against Rome were timely as the religious world is more and more allured by her and attracted to her theatrical and sensual worship.
In presenting his paper, The Toronto Blessing, Rev. K.M. Watkins gave it the subtitle, “A distinctly Reformed perspective”. He proceeded to weigh the Toronto Movement “in the balances of our distinctively reformed doctrines”. These doctrines were: 1, Scripture, in which the authority, necessity, and primacy of Scripture were highlighted; 2, worship, with particular reference to the manner and content of worship, and reverence in worship; 3, the Holy Spirit, which included the “Christ-exalting” nature of the work of the Holy Spirit, the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, and the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification; and 4, Christian experience.
The disparity between the Toronto Movement’s teaching on Christian experience and the Scriptural, Reformed position was strongly emphasised,
because the Toronto Movement claims to be primarily a movement of “experience”. “Reformed doctrine insists that the only way to the heart is through the mind”. Conversely, “the Toronto Movement insists on bypassing the human mind, by way of a suspension of the intellectual processes in order to receive the spiritual”. By all the given criteria the Toronto Movement was found to be utterly wanting. The need of thorough biblical reformation was impressed on us. The church that holds fast to these biblical and reformed principles in her doctrine, worship and practice, will be strong against every aberration and delusion with which the religious world may be visited.
In his paper Personal Piety, Rev. A. McPherson began with a brief definition of piety and proceeded to explain the “necessity for personal piety“, stating, “Anyone claiming to believe in Christ for salvation who clearly is not aiming at piety, is raising a serious objection to his claim. Salvation is always to be salvation from sin – from its dominion as well as its penal consequences.” In speaking on the “measure of piety“, Mr. McPherson reminded us that the work of sanctification by which the godly or pious are enabled to die unto sin and live unto righteousness is gradual. “Enabled more and more”, are the Catechism words. On the other hand, spiritual declension and backsliding will impede progress towards holiness and may even lead to open sin. The failure to grasp the necessity of holiness and to rest in a “current average of piety” was also warned against. The “pursuit of piety” was dealt with in three sections: 1, the negative aspect – sin to be forsaken; 2, the positive aspect – holiness to be earnestly sought; 3, the encouragements to the duty. We were left in no doubt from Scripture and from the writings of eminent theologians, of our need of earnestly pursuing piety, personally, patiently and perseveringly.
The final paper, The Need for Creeds and Confessions, by Rev. D. MacLean, was divided as follows: First, the historical need for creeds, (a creed was defined as “a public avowal of the doctrinal content of a person’s religious belief”). Creeds were necessary from earliest New Testament times to establish the substance of the Apostles’ preaching, prevent error, and instruct converts. The earliest extant creed is the Apostles’ Creed, though no apostolic authority is claimed for it. More sophisticated statements of Christian belief, such as the Nicene Creed, became necessary in later times to refute error, and culminated in the peerless Westminster Confession of Faith.
Secondly, the constitutional need for Confessions. Dealing with the post Reformation Church, Mr. MacLean noted that Confessions were now necessary to define Protestant and Reformed doctrine in contra-distinction to Roman Catholic belief. Confessions were also necessary as a uniform basis of instruction and a bond of communion within the Church.
Thirdly, the present need for Confessions. A Confession emphasises the
identity of a Church. It is vital that the Westminster Confession of Faith, for example, be adhered to if the doctrinal distinctions of the Protestant Reformation are to be maintained. Mr. MacLean noted how the present Church of Scotland, though clinging to its claims to be the national church, is in danger of losing its identity, as is proved by its sliding away from its confessional basis and into ecumenism. The need for a continuing Confessional Church, Protestant and Reformed, was impressed on us and our attention was drawn to the distinctive testimony that we hold as a branch of the visible church in our day.
All the papers were informative and stimulating, and we trust they will prove of spiritual benefit to all present. Indeed, we hope that they will be available to a larger audience through the Magazine or on tapes.* All those who prepared papers in the midst of full and taxing programmes are due our thanks.
* (A cased set of five tapes, with one lecture per tape, is available from Mr Duncan MacDonald, 5 Falcon Avenue, Inverness, IV2 3TF, at £10 per set).
Paul and James on Faith
IN the following letter Rev. J. R. Tallach answers a question put to him by a correspondent.
Dear Friend,
Thank you for your letter asking about the apparent contradiction between Paul’s comments on faith in Romans 1:7, “The just shall live by faith,” and in Romans 3:28, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” and James’ comments on faith in James 2:18, “…shew me thy faith without thy works and I will shew thee my faith by my works,” and in James 2:14-16, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”
The answer lies, as it so often does, in the context. Paul is answering Job’s question “…how should man be just with God?” (Job 9:2). His answer is plain. Faith alone in the Word of God alone. He goes on to prove that this has always been the case by showing that Abraham himself was counted just in the court of heaven by faith in God before ever the ceremonial law, embodied in the rite of circumcision, was introduced. Therefore he was not justified by the deeds of the law but “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness,” Romans 4:3.
James on the other hand is concerned to answer the question, What is true faith? Is a mere verbal profession of faith – “though a man say he hath faith” –
sufficient? Such faith is no better than mere verbal goodwill is to someone who is hungry and needs food, and cold and needs clothing (verse 16). The devils themselves have this bare belief in God. A living faith on the other hand will show itself by works of love as Abraham’s faith did when he was prepared to offer up his beloved son Isaac as an act of faith which demonstrated that he loved God more than he loved his son (verse 21).
In summary, Paul speaks of faith as the essential banknote of heaven while James holds up this banknote to the light to show the authenticating watermark “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works and by works was his faith made perfect” (verse 22). Paul speaks of the faith that justifies, James of the faith that is justified.
The Puritan, Thomas Manton, has an excellent commentary on the Epistle of James (pages 231-270) in volume 4 of his collected works (also published as a separate volume by the Banner of Truth Trust).
You raise an interesting question on the Roman Catholic view of the above which I hope to take up in a further letter DV.
Kindest regards, Yours very sincerely, James Tallach